Interim maintenance under Section 125 must balance the wife's needs with the husband's financial obligations, considering both parties' incomes.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.:-

Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘concerned Family Court’) praying for setting-aside of the said order. Vide the impugned order; the respondent-wife has been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner-husband (herein) from the date of the institution of the application alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. The respondent (herein) had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, stating that she is the wife of the petitioner (herein) and is unable to maintain herself and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to her.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has iterated that the respondent-wife has filed an application before the Family Court, seeking interim maintenance, by projecting false narrative which is contrary to the record. It has been further iterated that the respondent has very conveniently concealed her true financial status which constitutes gross abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel asserts that the findings of the learned Family Court are based on misrepresentation of facts and the same deserve to be set-aside. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is working as a Commission Agent and his monthly earning is Rs.15,000/-. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the minor daughter, who is school going, is in the care and custody of the petitioner, who is taking care of all her financial needs including tuition expense and transportation expenses. It has been further submitted that the Family Court has committed a grave error while passing the impugned order by not considering the true facts and false deposition of the respondent-wife and hence the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is not maintainable per se. It has been further emphasized that the respondent has deliberately attempted to conceal her financial status as she is imparting tuitions and earning handsomely which fact is decipherable from the fact that she is an income tax assessee. The concealment of this fact amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and Courts and tantamounts to a sole ground for the dismissal of her maintenance petition. Learned counsel has further argued that the Family Court ought to have considered this aspect before fastening the petitioner with the liability to pay interim maintenance to the respondent. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned order is patently illegal; suffers from material infirmities and the quantum of interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application seeking interim maintenance as the respondent-wife does not have any source of income to maintain herself. It has been further iterated that the petitioner-husband, in order to evade his liability to maintain the respondent-wife, has uploaded the false income tax returns on behalf of the respondent-wife, in order to impute some income to her; that the password of the respondent-wife was with the petitioner-husband and he has misused the same for the aforesaid purpose(s). Furthermore, the Family Court has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner as also taken due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., 2021(2) SCC 324; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“II Payment of interim Maintenance

I. The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001